Was child labor ended by capitalism, or by government law?

[joe]

I have no real issue with child labor. I had a job at 11. Forced or dangerous child labor? Should be out of course. But I know a lot of kids who would be better off with a job instead of doing the BS all their free time allows. Hell of a lot of perfectly safe work can be done by kids. If the kid and their parents are cool with it....and it wont hurt school? Id be fine with people working from like 12 on up.

Right on dude. That's what the article I posted was basically saying. Pretty much, "say what you will about child labor being dangerous in the 19th century.. what's wrong with it now? Kids could be helping old people with computers, delivering mail, etc." And the work experience could really help. Although, being mises.org, I'm sure they wouldn't want government laws forbidding dangerous work..

[N0Skillz]

Right on dude. That's what the article I posted was basically saying. Pretty much, "say what you will about child labor being dangerous in the 19th century.. what's wrong with it now? Kids could be helping old people with computers, delivering mail, etc." And the work experience could really help. Although, being mises.org, I'm sure they wouldn't want government laws forbidding dangerous work..

That's not Labor, kids still earn money that way.

Working 30-70 Hours a week is Labor...................

12 year olds shouldn't be working 8 hours a day

[JtotheIzzo]

its all relative. In countries like Cambodia where lots of 'sweatshops' are the idea of age is vastly different.

A lot of women are mothers by age 15, life expectancy is shorter, people are dirt poor and a lot of older people (30 plus is considered old) are too sick or lazy to work.

In these places the idea of a 14 year old putting in a good days work doesn't even raise an eyebrow, school is only for the rich and people need to make themselves useful and more importantly eat.

the world is a f*cked up place, there will always be child labor and in most places children will be clamoring to get these jobs. If some corrupt third world government official has received enough kickbacks and decides your area is suitable for a foreign company to set up a factory that district is happy as shit, and they are going to send everyone they can there to work.

[LJJ]

its all relative. In countries like Cambodia where lots of 'sweatshops' are the idea of age is vastly different.

A lot of women are mothers by age 15, life expectancy is shorter, people are dirt poor and a lot of older people (30 plus is considered old) are too sick or lazy to work.

In these places the idea of a 14 year old putting in a good days work doesn't even raise an eyebrow, school is only for the rich and people need to make themselves useful and more importantly eat.

the world is a f*cked up place, there will always be child labor and in most places children will be clamoring to get these jobs. If some corrupt third world government official has received enough kickbacks and decides your area is suitable for a foreign company to set up a factory that district is happy as shit, and they are going to send everyone they can there to work.

Which becomes a vicious circle of poverty. Kids working in factories from an early age leads to them becoming sick, weak and uneducated adults who need to send their kids into slavery to stay alive.

I understand that this is reality, but I don't understand how you can possibly see this as a good thing unless your only opinion amounts to "Well, as long as this means that they stay poor and we rich for the next 100 years I'm cool with it.".

[N0Skillz]

Which becomes a vicious circle of poverty. Kids working in factories from an early age leads to them becoming sick, weak and uneducated adults who need to send their kids into slavery to stay alive.

I understand that this is reality, but I don't understand how you can possibly see this as a good thing unless your only opinion amounts to "Well, as long as this means that they stay poor and we rich for the next 100 years I'm cool with it.".

Thank You LJJ, just thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth

[joe]

That's not Labor, kids still earn money that way.

Working 30-70 Hours a week is Labor...................

12 year olds shouldn't be working 8 hours a day

What I meant was, they could have jobs doing those things.

According to New York State Law (though this may be federal):

Minors not yet 14 may not be employed at any time:

Not after school
Not during vacation

With a few exceptions for certain jobs. There are different weird exceptions here and there, but that's the meat and potatoes of it.

Well, what if a 13 year old has a skill and wants to make some money? Why should that be outlawed? I really don't get it. What if his business owner Uncle wants to hire him to sweep up and vacuum for 4 hours a day after school? Why is that a bad thing?

When kids graduate high school, you hear people say "college isn't for everyone. you might be better going to trade school or just getting a job." Well, why is middle school right for everybody? Or at the very least, why is work experience in addition to school wrong for anyone who isn't 14?

We've all been brainwashed into thinking public school is this magic pill. I agree that education is a great thing, I encourage all to do it.. but I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what's best for everyone.

I don't think you're arrogant like that either. Perhaps you just think those kids will be exploited by companies if they don't go to public school until they're 18. I beg the differ. But I suppose I can see where you're coming from. But I only see where you're coming from from a moral sense. I don't think these laws are the right path for us to take.

[joe]

Which becomes a vicious circle of poverty. Kids working in factories from an early age leads to them becoming sick, weak and uneducated adults who need to send their kids into slavery to stay alive.

I understand that this is reality, but I don't understand how you can possibly see this as a good thing unless your only opinion amounts to "Well, as long as this means that they stay poor and we rich for the next 100 years I'm cool with it.".

Well, let's apply my initial question to JtotheIzzo's post.

The question was.. what ended child labor in America. Capitalism/free markets/small, lawful government... or government child labor laws?

The new question is, what can end child labor overseas? I think, if these countries toppled their government, adopted the values of early America, went through their own industrial revolution, had sound currency, free markets, etc. They would see prosperity. As I've said a million times and I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

What do you think would end child labor and poverty in some of these foreign, sweat shop countries?

[joe]

its all relative. In countries like Cambodia where lots of 'sweatshops' are the idea of age is vastly different.

A lot of women are mothers by age 15, life expectancy is shorter, people are dirt poor and a lot of older people (30 plus is considered old) are too sick or lazy to work.

In these places the idea of a 14 year old putting in a good days work doesn't even raise an eyebrow, school is only for the rich and people need to make themselves useful and more importantly eat.

the world is a f*cked up place, there will always be child labor and in most places children will be clamoring to get these jobs. If some corrupt third world government official has received enough kickbacks and decides your area is suitable for a foreign company to set up a factory that district is happy as shit, and they are going to send everyone they can there to work.

I agree with all of this. But you would also say that these foreign countries are by and large capitalist, no? That I'd disagree with to some extent, but it depends on the definition of capitalism we use, and to what degree.

Actually, capitalism is a pretty broad term. I think it was wrong of me to put only "capitalism" in the thread title, because it was really a mix of things that (IMO) ended child labor in America. It was capitalism, free markets, small, lawful government that mostly stayed out of the way of business, sound currency, low taxes, respect of property rights, etc.

Do you think implementing those things in countries like Cambodia would end their child labor? Or, what would be your solution?

[LJJ]

Well, let's apply my initial question to JtotheIzzo's post.

The question was.. what ended child labor in America. Capitalism/free markets/small, lawful government... or government child labor laws?

The new question is, what can end child labor overseas? I think, if these countries toppled their government, adopted the values of early America, went through their own industrial revolution, had sound currency, free markets, etc. They would see prosperity. As I've said a million times and I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

What do you think would end child labor and poverty in some of these foreign, sweat shop countries?

That would work if it happened 1500 years ago, but it does not work in the reality of today.

Maybe 1500 years ago Cambodia could have invaded the US. Basically commit genocide on all the indigenous people.. Then use industrial scale slavery to holocaust themselves into moderate prosperity and then have their industrial revolution, but today that possibility is not there.

[brantonli]

But keep in mind, sending your kids to school is a luxury. You can't send your kids to school if you cant' afford to not have them work.

Firstly, if education seems to be a luxury rather than a necessity in today's world, then I have a few economists who would like to have a word with you (no seriously, some of my professors would probably have a word).

Let me put out an example. Hong Kong is ranked as one of the most freest economies in the world, one of the best places to start a business and (most recently) ranked even higher than New York and London as a financial centre. Milton Friedman once said HK is the best example of capitalism in the world. But we also have 9 years of free and compulsory education since at least 1971. Now, neither do I pretend to know exactly what's best for everybody else, but to use that as an argument NOT to do anything is just....lazy. To say 'Because we cannot tailor for each person's educational need, we shouldn't make education compulsory', just doesn't make sense. In that case, we shouldn't make it compulsory to pay taxes, have a law system. Yes you'll get inefficiencies, but the benefits of the system for the whole society will be far greater than the little wrinkles within.

As for the book itself, Poor Economics, it is completely focused on current poverty (sorry, not the industrial revolution or America's rise), and these authors have actually spent years interviewing and doing randomised control testing to see the effects of different methods of getting rid of poverty, one of which is education. It's won the FT and Goldman S Business Book of the Year, and in my opinion an eyeopener about the third world, because frankly, we are pretty damn clueless about them. Doesn't really mention capitalism (or what this thread is really about, economic growth), although you'll have to read it yourself, because my memory is a bit fuzzy :P

And I still don't see why it cannot be a combination of both.

[kNIOKAS]

Well, let's apply my initial question to JtotheIzzo's post.

The question was.. what ended child labor in America. Capitalism/free markets/small, lawful government... or government child labor laws?

The new question is, what can end child labor overseas? I think, if these countries toppled their government, adopted the values of early America, went through their own industrial revolution, had sound currency, free markets, etc. They would see prosperity. As I've said a million times and I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

What do you think would end child labor and poverty in some of these foreign, sweat shop countries?

just note early america had whole continent of resources, plus all the oil. most of the countries have none. it's mind boggling when you actually realise how different the situation between early america and some poor countries nowdays is. it's the resources, man.

[joe]

Firstly, if education seems to be a luxury rather than a necessity in today's world, then I have a few economists who would like to have a word with you (no seriously, some of my professors would probably have a word).

Let me put out an example. Hong Kong is ranked as one of the most freest economies in the world, one of the best places to start a business and (most recently) ranked even higher than New York and London as a financial centre. Milton Friedman once said HK is the best example of capitalism in the world. But we also have 9 years of free and compulsory education since at least 1971. Now, neither do I pretend to know exactly what's best for everybody else, but to use that as an argument NOT to do anything is just....lazy. To say 'Because we cannot tailor for each person's educational need, we shouldn't make education compulsory', just doesn't make sense. In that case, we shouldn't make it compulsory to pay taxes, have a law system. Yes you'll get inefficiencies, but the benefits of the system for the whole society will be far greater than the little wrinkles within.

As for the book itself, Poor Economics, it is completely focused on current poverty (sorry, not the industrial revolution or America's rise), and these authors have actually spent years interviewing and doing randomised control testing to see the effects of different methods of getting rid of poverty, one of which is education. It's won the FT and Goldman S Business Book of the Year, and in my opinion an eyeopener about the third world, because frankly, we are pretty damn clueless about them. Doesn't really mention capitalism (or what this thread is really about, economic growth), although you'll have to read it yourself, because my memory is a bit fuzzy :P

And I still don't see why it cannot be a combination of both.

I think you've got my point a bit wrong. I might not be reading you right, though.

I'm not saying childhood education is bad. I think it's great for kids to get educated, and I'm happy I was able to go to school as a kid instead of being sent to a factory. But what I'm saying is, it's a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. For the majority of our time line, children worked just so the family could afford to feed them. So we should examine what made this massive shift possible, so we can keep it that way. So we never have to go back to children working 16 hour days on a farm, or in a factory.

I think childhood education can and does have a great effect on society, but I don't agree with it being compulsory. The thing is, if your society is rich enough.. people will send their kids to school. They will want their kids educated. But I don't think it's the governments place to make a blanket decision for that many people. We should respect peoples freedom to choose what's best for their own kids. The fear mongers tell us that without child labor laws and compulsory education, kids will be right back to working 18 hours in dangerous mines, for little pay. But the facts show that it was economic prosperity that put an end to that practice. If we maintain the pillars that made us rich, we will never need child labor laws.

I'm definitely not trying to hate on education. I'm so grateful to grow up in a time, where I could go to school instead of working in a mine. But that's part of the reason why I want people to recognize the reasons that we had the luxury of going to school. And it's the same reason why kids overseas are working in sweatshops. They have oppressive governments with too much power, too much control over their personal lives, and over the economy. IMO of course.

To address your other point about compulsory taxes, laws, etc. I think as the people, we need to recognize that we created government. And its power should be restricted to only the most necessary things. After that, it becomes a destructive force. We need things like an army, navy, and air force to protect us. Protecting private property and enforcing contracts, to promote economic growth. And having a legal system to punish murder, rape, theft, and other major crimes.

Ugh, I've been so lazy about reading books lately. Just reading online and stuff. I've been thinking of buying a kindle, just to force myself to read to justify the $150's I'd spend on it. I'll at least read some reviews of that book to see what it has to say. Sorry I wrote so much. I always end up writing too much. lol

[joe]

just note early america had whole continent of resources, plus all the oil. most of the countries have none. it's mind boggling when you actually realise how different the situation between early america and some poor countries nowdays is. it's the resources, man.

True, twas indeed a crazy situation. So much empty space. I always think about this when I argue states rights over federal government rights. Like... "states rights" is only an argument an American can have. Our states are like entire European countries in many cases. I guess over there it'd be federal vs local, I suppose.